Endorsements
Before today, the conventional wisdom about the Democratic endorsements (at least such as there was one) suggested that Clinton--the establishmentarian and the national front-runner--would get the bulk of significant endorsements. And, indeed, before the news that Ted Kennedy and Kathleen Sebelius would endorse Barack Obama, that seemed to be how things were shaping up.
By my casual count*, before Sunday, Hillary Clinton had won the support of seven 11 senators (Robert Menendez, Diane Feinstein, Evan Bayh, Debbie Stabenow, Maria Cantwell, Barbara Mikulski, Bill Nelson, Chuck Schumer, Mark Pryor, Daniel Inouye, and Sheldon Whitehouse) to Obama's four seven (Dick Durbin, Patrick Leahy, John Kerry, Tim Johnson, Ben Nelson, Kent Conrad, and Claire McCaskill). And, yes, seven 11 is a greater number than four seven. But I think (as I've hinted before) that there was something telling under the surface the senatorial endorsements as they looked yesterday; specifically that whereas the Clinton endorsements all have a sheen of obviousness about them, there is, in my reading anyhow, a significance to particularly Leahy's and McCaskill's endorsements that raise questions about how effectively Clinton could actually manage the presidency.
I think the Kennedy news just brings the point home. Kennedy chairs the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions atop both Clinton and Obama. He is, at the same time, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, which is the very committee that has supposedly served as Clinton's home school for acquiring her widely praised military expertise. He is, in other words, not just the nation's most trusted and revered Democrat, but also, coincidentally, the one who's had the greatest opportunity to see the young candidates at work. And he came away supporting Obama.
All of which indicates to me that--except where centrist, hawkish Democratic senators like Feinstein and Bayh are concerned--Clinton wouldn't have as easy a time working the legislative bureaucracy as she'd have her supporters believe. And Obama--messy desk notwithstanding--might not do such a bad job of it.
* = correct me if I've missed any.
Update: Thanks to Minipundit for the correct tally--as of today, 11 senators are supporting for Clinton, to Obama's seven. The ones I missed (Bill Nelson, Mark Pryor, Chuck Schumer, and Daniel Inouye for Clinton, Ben Nelson, Tim Johnson, and Ken Conrad for Obama) don't really change the larger point.
Comments
As of today, it's 11 and 8. In addition to the seven you have, Clinton has Bill Nelson, Chuck Schumer, Mark Pryor, and Daniel Inouye. Obama has Ben Nelson, Ken Conrad, and Tim Johnson. Wikipedia has a pretty good, sourced tally, though it doesn't include Bill Nelson as of now (and, bizarrely, it includes self-endorsements).
I think the timing of endorsements is also interesting and important. Clinton lined up all of her Senatorial endorsements last year, before December. All but one came in September or before when she was the presumptive nominee, so it's hard to view the choice by politicians to endorse her as more than political expediancy. (Wikepedia, among other places, lists dates of endorsements).
If we look at the endorsement race since people started voting in the primaries, Obama is way ahead. He has been gaining endorsements left and right, several from politicians such as Ted Kennedy who were at first determined to stay neutral. Of course Clinton has won some garnered some other endorsements lately but all the important decisions by groups since Obama won Iowa, since it was apparent that there was at least a real chance the Clinton machine could be stopped, have seemed to go to Obama (or Edwards, with some unions).
Endorsements seem like a hangover from an earlier era to me, and I'm not sure what weight they have in today's media and money-driven political environment. I guess there are endorsements and there are endorsements. An endorsement that is just a name on a list (unless it is a Kennedy, which has dog-whistle overtones of its own) isn't very helpful in reality.
On the other hand, an endorsement that means the person actively campaigns for the candidate in places where the endorsee has some clout is a good thing, and influential.
On the list of those endorsing either candidate, I don't see many active-campaigner types. There are some possibles: Durbin, Kennedy, Schumer. Illinois, Mass and NY are key states - but Hillary will likely take NY with or without Schumer. MA and IL will be really key. So those count, if the Illinois and MA machines can be turned to Obama.
There's some subtext here as well. The Clintons and Kennedys have been cousins, but not of the kissing type. Lots of friction there in the past. With Ted and Caroline joining Obama, there's a strong signal there. I'd expect RFK Jr to also play a role before this is over.
Feinstein won't help Hillary in CA - she's way out of touch these days with the latinos, blacks, and liberals (of the Bay Area variety), and the independents won't follow her lead. Those few remaining CA GOP moderates are totally unpredictable, as you Brian of the Southland, will understand better than I.
Anyway. Is there anyone (beyond Kennedy and Durbin) who would really make a difference to Clinton or Obama? Maybe Richardson - but he's trolling for a job that he's likely only to get from Hillary, and maybe not even then (the Clinton's don't like uncontrollable limelight stealers THAT much).
Summary of my thoughts: Forget the endorsers, pretty much. I can't think of a Prez. nomination in the Dem. party that was obtained because of the weight of a single or group of endorser(s).
Well, Gore is one. And McCaskill is something like Obama's Missouri chair, so that may be significant. I think, though, that the endorsers are interesting because they give the lie to the idea that Hillary has a lock on the bureaucracy. She clearly has plenty of enemies there too.
One thing that endorsements give, even if an elected official doesn't actively campaign, is access to mailing lists and voter information gathered by that officials office... John Kerry's lists in particular carry some weight in this department even if he's kind of an irrelevant voice at this point.
Should it be emphasised that Hillary is getting endorsed by the Bush Dogs? And then, maybe, intimated that a Clinton presidency would maybe shift power to the Bush Dogs?
you left out sen tim johnson of south dakota and sen ben nelson of nebraska, two more red or swing state democratic senators endorsing obama. with ted kennedy that brings his total to 7 so far, equal to clinton's.
Thanks Mike. Just in case you read this in an RSS, I updated the post last night. The correct totals before Kennedy were Clinton-11 Obama-7
Endorsements are important not so much for converting the average voter but more for impacting the super delegates. This race was Clinton's to lose and not Obama's to win. One could have predicted the Climtons would implode. We are all in for a real suprise at the convention. One of the real benefits of what has been going on is that the public has shown they are smarter than the media and the politicos thought.
Post A Comment